pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>
Subject: Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:23:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1409116988.2335.463.camel@jeff-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53FC6545.7000501@vmware.com>
References: <51B6C97B.1070000@bluegap.ch>
	<BF2827DCCE55594C8D7A8F7FFD3AB7713DDBC758@SZXEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com>
	<5370D323.1070606@vmware.com>
	<20140512144112.GB9619@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<5370E267.2020904@vmware.com>
	<20140515183436.GD25053@momjian.us>
	<CA+TgmoYiqga4KWz_1=O8D6ivmTAJfY=-fxO6Nk+D-o3M0M60=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140515200632.GB16014@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<20140515213714.GB7857@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
	<53889CCB.7030005@vmware.com>
	<20140530152721.GC30516@awork2.anarazel.de>
	<5388D02D.6040305@vmware.com>
	<CA+TgmoZ4cP_1Pavwn+VX74_ksDhHf-whO5FFR1j+NdZqONu8MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM-w4HMG-YeTfWc3r_excej3Kd04q4zDDXR0hxShVbij211ABA@mail.gmail.com>
	<539AD153.9000004@vmware.com>
	<1409043789.2335.330.camel@jeff-desktop>
	<53FC6545.7000501@vmware.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 13:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yeah. This patch in the current state is likely much much slower than 
> unpatched master, except in extreme cases where you have thousands of 
> connections and short transactions so that without the patch, you spend 
> most of the time acquiring snapshots.

What else are you looking to accomplish with this patch during this
'fest? Bug finding? Design review? Performance testing?

I haven't had a good track record with my performance testing recently,
so I'm unlikely to be much help there.

It seems a bit early for bug hunting, unless you think it will raise
possible design issues.

I think there's already at least one design issue to consider, which is
whether we care about CLOG/CSNLOG access for hinted records where the
xid > snapshot->xmin (that is, accesses that previously would have
looked at xip). Would more discussion help here or do we need to wait
for performance numbers?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis




-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (113+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1409116988.2335.463.camel@jeff-desktop>
Permalink:  ../1409116988.2335.463.camel@jeff-desktop/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1409116988.2335.463.camel@jeff-desktop

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: pgsql@j-davis.com, hlinnakangas@vmware.com, stark@mit.edu, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com, ants@cybertec.at, markus@bluegap.ch
  Subject: Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots
  In-Reply-To: <1409116988.2335.463.camel@jeff-desktop>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox